.H <^^ 



AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 



MISSOURI PARTY STRUGGLES IN THE 
CIVIL WAR PERIOD. 



Prof. SAMUEL B. HARDING, 

UNIVERSITY OF INDIANA. 



(From thpi Annual Report of tho American Historical Association for 1900, 
Vol. I, pages 85-103.) 





wASimmTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFTC^E. 
1901. 



FEB 3 1903 
D.ofD, 



AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 



MISSOURI PARTY STRUGGLES IN THE 
CIVIL WAR PERIOD. 



PRor. SAMUEL B. HARDING, 

UNIVERSITY OF INDIANA. 



(From tlip Aiiniiiil Report of tho American Hi.storioal Association for 1000, 
Vol. I, pages 85-10.'5.) 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 
1 9 ( » 1 . 



v.— MISSOURI TARTY STRUGGLES IN THE CIVIL WAR PERIOD. 



By Prof. SAMUEL B. HARDING, 
UNIVERSITY OF INDIANA. 



85 



MISSOURI PARTY STRUGGLES IN THE CIVIL WAR PERIOD. 



By Prof. Samuel B. H.vkdinc;, University of Indiana. 



In his reply to a delegation of Missouri Radicals in 1863, 
President Lincoln shrewdly analyzed the political differences 
which had distracted Missouri since the beginning of the Re- 
bellion. ''We are in ciyil war. In such cases," he said, 
"there always is a main question; but in this case that ques- 
tion is a perplexing compound — Union and Slayery. It thus 
becomes a question not of two sides merely, but of at least 
four sides, eyen among those who are for the Union, saying- 
nothing of those who are against it. Thus, those who are 
for the Union with, but not without, slayery — those for it 
without, but not with — those for it with or without, but 
prefer it Avith — and those for it with or without, but prefer 
it without. Among these again is a subdiyision of those 
who are for gradual but not for immediate, and those who 
are for innnediate but not for gradual extinction of slayery. 
It is easy to conceiye," he adds, "that all these shades of 
opinion, and even more, may be sincerely entertained by 
honest and truthful men. Yet, all being for the Union, by 
reason of these differences each will prefer a different way of 
sustaining the Union." ^ 

Accepting this statement as the basis for a study of the 
political moyements of the time, we ffnd the history of the 
period falling into two chronological diyisions. In the first, 
which extends to the end of August, 1861, the question at 
issue was primarily that of Union or disunion, slayery enter- 
ing into the discussions only incidentally. In the second, from 
August 31, 1861, to January 11, 1865, slayery itself is the 
paramount issue, though differences continue, eyen among 

, iNieolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln, VIII, p. 221. 

87 



88 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

the lo3^alists of the State, with reference to degrees of devo- 
tion to the Union. In the five years which follow the close 
of this second division, the echoes of the strife of the civil 
war linger in the controversies over disqualification and dis- 
franchisement of rebel S3niipathizers, and enfranchisement of 
the negro, but with this period we shall not here concern 
ourselves. 

Taking the vote cast at the Presidential election of 1860 as 
the starting point of our study, there is a certain significance 
in the figures. Missouri was the only State completel}' car- 
ried for Douglas, and his pluralit}' over the Bell-Everett 
ticket was small. Of the 165,000 votes cast at this election 
the bulk was almost equally divided (58,801 and 58,372, respec- 
tively) between these two tickets; while Breckinridge received 
but 31,317 and Lincoln 17,028.^ The one thing that this 
election made absolutely certain was that as matters then 
stood Missouri was overwhelmingly against both the extreme 
Northern and the extreme Southern positions. But when the 
crisis actuall}' came, in the winter and spring of 1860-61, the 
magnitude of the issues involved and the feeling of kinship 
to and identity of institutions with the South, led many who 
had voted against Breckinridge to hesitate, and to incline 
more to the Southern view. In the effort to recall the seced- 
ing States to the Union, full — even exaggerated — recognition 
was given to the Southern causes of complaint; but the uncon- 
stitutionality of secession was proclaimed, and a peaceful and 
permanent accommodation of differences was urged, with ear- 
nest iteration.^ The result, however, was different from what 
the authors of this policy expected. The conflict was indeed 
"irrepressible;" and their moderation only encouraged the 
secessionists of the State to redoul^led exertions to carry 
Missouri out of the Union. 

The leader in the latter movement was the newl}- inaugu- 
rated governor, Claiborne F. Jackson, the putative father of 
the famous "Jackson resolutions" of 18-19, Avhich had dis- 
rupted the Democratic party and put an end to Benton's sen- 

■> Switzler, History of Missouri, p. 297. 

2 See, e. g., letter of James S. Rollins to R. E. Dunn, Feb. 2, 1861, in Memoir of Rollins 
(privately printed N. Y., 1891). Rollins had been a leading Whig, and in 1857, as the 
candidate of the Whigs, Americans, and Benton Democrats, came within 334 votes of 
defeating Stewart for the governorship. Although one of the largest slave owners in 
the State, he had privately opposed the proslavory colonization of Kansas. 



MISSOURI PARTY STRUGGLES IN CIVIL WAR. 89 

atorial career. His predecessor, Governor Stewart, on laying- 
down bis office, January 3, 1861, had declared: 

As matters are at present jNIissouri will stand by her lot, and hold to the 
Union as long as it is worth an effort to preserve it. * * * She can not 
he frightened from her propriety by the past unfriendly legislation of the 
North, nor be dragooned into secession by the extreme South. * * * 
She will rather take the high position of armed neutrality. She is able to 
take care of herself, and will be neither forced nor flattered, driven nor 
coaxed, into a course of action that must end in her own destruction.' 

To this utterance, Jackson, in his inaugural address on the 
evening of the same day, opposed the following, which was 
patentl}^ in the interests of secession: 

The destiny of the slave-holding States of this Union is one and the 
same. * * * if the Northern States have determined to put the 
slave-holding States on a footing of inequality * * * then they have 
themselves practically abandoned the Union and will not expect our submis- 
sion to a government on terms of inequality and subordination. * * * 
I am not without hope that an adjustment alike honorable to both sections 
can be effected, * * * but in the present unfavorable aspect of public 
affairs it is our duty to prepare for the worst. We can not avoid danger 
by closing our eyes to it. The magnitude of the interests now in jeopardy 
demands a prompt but deliberate consideration; and in order that the will 
of the people may be ascertained and effectuated a State convention should, 
in my view, be immediately called. * * * In this way the whole sub- 
ject will be brought directly before the people at large, who will deter- 
mine for themselves what is to be the ultimate action of the State. ^ 

In close alliance with Jackson in this endeavor acted Lieu- 
tenant-Governor Reynolds (who as president of the senate 
lent eifective aid), the speaker of the house of representa- 
tives, the more important State officers, and both United 
States Senators, while a majority of the members of both 
houses of the general assembl}', as shown b}^ their votes and 
actions both before and after armed conflict had actually be- 
gun, were not seriously averse to secession.'' 

1 House Journal, 1861, p. 18-26; Snead, Fight for Missouri, p. 15-16. 

2 House Journal, 1861; Snead, Fight lOr Missouri, pp. 18-25. In a private letter to the 
president of the Arkansas convention, dated April 19, 1861, Jackson makes a more 
explicit avowal of his position: " From the beginning," he writes, "my own conviction 
has been that the interest, duty, and honor of every slave-holding State demands their 
separation from the Northern or nonslave-holding States." — (Convention Journal, July, 
1861, p. 28; Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia, 1861, under "Missouri.") Yet Jackson had 
been elected as an avowed Union man, and in his inaugural professed " an honest devo. 
tion to * * * that Union which the Constitution was designed to perpetuate. "—(House 
Journal, 1861, p. 45). This only makes evident the different degrees in which "Union 
and slavery" were confounded in the political principles of Missouri statesmen. 

3 Snead, pp. 53-54. 



90 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

At first, however, the assembly showed a disposition to 
moderation which its subsequent action belied. An act for 
the calling of a State convention, it is true, was passed within 
a fortnight after Jackson's recommendation, by a vote of 105 
to 18 in the house and 30 to 3 in the senate. But in that act, 
by a vote of 17 to 15 in the senate and 81 to iO in the house, 
a drag was attached to the wheels of secession in the shape of 
a provision declaring that "no act, ordinance, or resolution 
of said convention shall be deemed to be valid to change or 
dissolve the political relations of this State to the Government 
of the United States, or to an}^ other State, until a majorit}^ of 
the qualified voters of this State, voting upon the question, 
shall ratify the same."^ Various considerations doubtless 
contributed to the insertion of this provision. Among these 
may be named: First, a spirit of hesitation on the part of 
many members, and an indisposition to take the irrevocable 
step while there yet remained a plausible hope of securing a 
peaceful redress of grievances; and, secondly, a mistaken 
belief that the people were prepared to back the State ad- 
ministration in whatever steps it might deem needful to be 
taken. 

After the election for delegates to the convention, which 
took place February 18, the latter l)elief could no longer be 
entertained. Parties as they had shaped themselves in Mis- 
souri by this time may roughly l)e divided into three, each, 
however, shading into the next b}" such insensible gradations 
of opinion as to render it difficult to draw the line of demar- 
cation with any degree of exactitude. At the one extreme 
were the secessionists, the followei's of Jackson; at the other 
the unconditional ITnion men, mainly of Free-Soil and Repub- 
lican affiliations; while l)etween lay the large body of citizens 
who hoped and expected to see the Union preserved, but 
would give their continued allegiance to it only on condition 
that the grievances of the South be redressed, preferably on 
some such lines as those indicated in the Crittenden compro- 
mise.' Of the three the unconditional Union men showed by 
far the greater energy, skill, and address. Under the mod- 
erate counsel of Frank Blair and the persuasive eloquence of 

1 Journals, House and Senate, 1861, passim. The act calling the convention maybe 
found prefixed to the Journal and Proceedings of the Convention, etc., March, 1861. 
2For an analysis of party grouping at this time see Snead, eh. 3. 



MISSOHRI PARTY STRUGGLES IN CIVIL WAR. 91 

James S. Rollins, the German Republicans of St. Louis, who 
constituted the nucleus of the party, were brought ii>to coop- 
eration with those adherents of Douglas, Bell, and Breckin- 
ridge who were willing to declare themselves unconditionally 
for the Union. ^ The result of this combination was an over- 
whelming verdict at the polls against secession. In St. Louis 
County the Unconditional Union ticket was elected by 5,000 
votes. For the State as a whole it was estimated that the 
Unionists' majority amounted to 80,000 votes, a majoritv 
equal to nearly one-half the total vote cast at the preceding- 
Presidential election. Not one open and avowed secessionist, 
it may confidently be asserted, was elected to the convention; 
but, it must be confessed, many of its members were separated 
in sentiments by a wide range from the Unconditional Union 
delegates of St. Louis. 

The object of the convention, as defined in its call, was "to 
consider the then existing relations between the Government 
of the United States, the people and governments of the dif- 
ferent States, and the government and people of the State of 
Missouri; and to adopt such measures for vindicating the 
sovereignt}^ of the State and the protection of its institutions 
as shall appear to them to be demanded." When it met, on 
Februaiy 28, 1861, its first act, after effecting a permanent 
organization, was to remove its sessions from the hostile 
atmosphere of Jefferson City to the more congenial air of St. 
Louis. There its work was carried on to the completion of 
the session. In due course its committee on Federal relations 
presented what a supporter characterized as eminently "a 
'Union report,' presenting no ultimatum, uttering no threat, 
seeking to maintain the dignity of Missouri in an attitude of 
peace." '^ It was far, however, from being an antislaver}^ docu- 
ment in any sense of the word. The report, as distinguished 
from the resolutions which it introduced, recognized that the 
"people of the South [had] well-grounded complaints against 
many of their fellow-citizens of the North," and instanced in 
this connection "the incessant abuse poured upon their insti- 
tutions by the press, the pulpit, and many of the people of 

1 '• I don't believe," one rigid partisan is reported as saying in opposition to the propo- 
sal of a joint ticket, "in breaking up the Republican party yast to please those tender- 
footed Unionists. I believe in sticking to the party." "Let us hsive a. count nj first," 
responded Blair, "and then we can talk about parties." (Carr, Missouri, p. 284.) 

- Convention Proceedings (March, 1861), p. 101. 



92 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

the North," and the State legislation and mob violence which 
prevented the execution of the fugitive-slave law. Neverthe- 
less, the resolutions themselves declared unequivocally: First, 
that "at present there [was] no adequate cause to impel Mis- 
souri to dissolve her connection with the Federal Union;" 
second, that the people of the State were "devotedly attached 
to the institutions of [their] country;" and, third, that they 
deemed "the amendments to the Constitution of the United 
States proposed by the Hon. John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, 
with the extension of the same to the territory hereafter to 
be acquired, by treat}^ or otherwise, a basis of adjustment 
which [would] successfully remove the causes of difference 
forever from the arena of national politics." In the fifth 
resolution, it should be added, the convention earnestly en- 
treated "as well the Federal Government as the seceding 
States, to withhold and sta}^ the arm of military power, and 
on no pretense whatever bring upon the nation the horrors of 
civil war." ^ 

On the adoption of the first resolution — that there was no 
adequate cause for secession — there was but one dissenting 
vote;" and the second, vowing devoted attachment to the 
institutions of the country, was carried unanimously. The 
struggle came on the third and fifth resohitions, which de- 
clared for the Crittenden compromise and entreated ])oth 
sides to refrain from warlike operations. To the latter an 
amendment was added, b}^ a vote of 51 to 44, reconmiending 
" the policy of Avithdrawing the Federal troops from the forts 
within the })orders of the seceeding States where there is dan- 
ger of collision between the State and Federal troops."'' To 
the former an addition was earnestl}^ urged pledging Missouri 
"to take a firm and decided stand in favor of her sister slave 
States " in case the North refused a settlement on the basis of 
the Crittenden proposition and the other border States (Vir- 
ginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and 
Kentucky) should all secede. Ultimately this amendment was 
rejected by a vote of 70 to 23, the more thoroughgoing Union- 
ists putting their votes largeh' on the ground of a preference 
for the Douglas, the Corwin-Adams, or the Franklin propo- 

1 Convention Proceedings (March, 1861), pp. 55-58. 

-Proceedings (March, 1861), p. 216. 

^Ibid., p. 246. The phraseology is tliat lator .■uiiii)tc(l liy connnoii consent. See p. '2.58. 



MISSOUKI PARTY STRUGGLES IN CIVIL WAR. 93 

sitions, and an uiiwilling-ness to assent to an^^thino- partaking' 
of the nature of a threat or an ultimatum.^ 

Before dismissing- this session of the convention from our 
consideration, we ma}' well look for a moment more closely 
at the views expressed by menjbers of that body in debate. 
Secession was almost uni^-ersally conceded, even by the most 
ardent sympathizers with the South, to be an unconstitutional 
and revolutionary act.^ On the other hand, the wrongs of the 
South received equall}^ universal recognition. Not one mem- 
ber of the convention at this session avowed the slightest 
hostility to slavery as an institution, or a desire to see it done 
away with. No man in that convention was more stalwart in 
his Unionism, or took a more active part when war came, in 
supporting the Federal Government than did James O. Broad- 
head, of St. Louis. Yet his position on this subject, as pub- 
licl}' avowed, is summed up in these words: "I am willing to 
go as far as an}- living man to protect the institution of slavery 
in the State of Missouri. I have no prejudice against the 
institution. I have l)een raised with the institution, and I 
know something of it. I am a slave owner myself; but I am 
not willing to sacrifice other interests to the slave interest, or 
say that it is the peculiar institution of Missouri, when we 
know that it is not true."^ So, too, there was but one mem- 
ber of the convention willing to pledge himself explicitly, in 
case war came, to the defense of the Union, and he was a Ger- 
man, a native of Austria, Isidor Bush, of St. Louis. In the 
one speech that he made during- the session, he declared: 
" While you, Mr. President, and all the members of this con- 
vention, I believe, onl}^ imagine the horrors of war, and fancy 
the evils of revolution, I hunn them. My eyes have seen what 
3'ou can not imagine, what 1 can not describe — the terrors 
of civil war, of bloodshed, and revolution. * * ^' [Yet] 

1 Proceedings (March, \f&X\ , pp. 217-230. It is to bo noted as significant that out of the 
23 members voting "no" on this question, 16 voted later against the crowning action of 
the convention in deposing Governor Jackson, while of the 70 "ayes," 50 recorded their 
votes in favor of that step. (Convention Journal, July, 18()1, p. 20.) 

2 See, e. g., Proceedings (March, 1861), p. 165. 

3 Proceedings (March, 1S61), p. 122. The nearest approach to an avowal of hostility to 
slavery is that of Linton, on p. 1G8: "Southern orators say that, like a scorpion girt by 
fire, slavery will sting it.self to death if bounded. * * * If it is the scorpion it appears 
to be, we had better get rid of it in Africa than extend it through our Territories. At 
any rate we can not blame the people for being afraid of the scorpion. For myself, I 
want nothing better than the Corwiu compromise reported by the committee of thirty- 
three." 



94 AMERICATSr HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

should a conflict be inevitable, 1 pledge inj'self that 3'our Ger- 
man fellow-citizens will stand by the Government and the 
Union. They love peace. * * * [But] the history ot their 
own thirty-four confederated states of distracted Germany 
teaches them that there is no peace and no liberty without 
union. "^ 

On the whole, the convention was moderate and conservative 
in word and action, and its equal loyalty to the Union and to 
slavery undoubtedly reflects the dominant opinion of the State- 
at this time. Its refusal to folloAV in the line marked out b}' 
Governor Jackson, however, was inexpressibly galling to the 
secessionists. To the action of this "sovereign" convention, 
Avhich they themselves had called, a member replied from 
the floor of that assembly: "I defy the convention. They 
are political cheats, jugglers, and charlatans, who foisted 
themselves upon the people by ditties and music and striped 
flags. The)" do not represent Missouri. They have ' crooked 
the pliant hinges of the knee that thrift might follow fawn- 
ing.' As for myself * * * | ^^jq never, nevei\ never 
submit to Northern rule and dictation. " "" The same acceptance 
of the views of the secessionist minority, despite the evidence, 
as the views of the people, and a determination to persist in 
secession projects, is seen in Governor Jackson's repl}" to the 
President's requisition for troops to repossess the forts and 
places seized from the Union. "Your requisition, in m}' 
judgment," telegraphed Jackson, "is illegal, unconstitutional, 
and revolutionary in its objects, inhuman and diabolical, and 
can not ])e complied with. Not one man will the State of Mis- 
souri furnish to carry on any such unholy crusade."^ 

It was evident then, and it is still more evident now, that 
Jackson and his adherents Avere bent on carrying Missouri 
out of the Union, with or Avithout the concurrence of the 
majority of her citizens. To them democracy meant the rule 
of their faction. Into the details of the struggle which en- 
sued we can not now enter. Jackson's efl'orts to secure mor- 
tars and siege guns to attack the arsenal at St. Louis, the 
assembling of State troops at Camp Jackson, and the hostile 

1 Proceedings (March, 1861), p. 244. 

sSnead, Fight for Missouri, pp. 93-94. 

3War of tlie Rebellion: Official Records, Series III, Vol. X, p. 83. 



MISSOURI PAKTY STRUGGLES IIST CIVIL WAR. 95 

leg-islation of the General Asseinl)ly must all be passed over, 
equallj^ with the counter efforts of the committee of safety, 
the enrollment of Blair's "Home Guards/' and the dogged 
and unwearying patriotism with which Capt. Nathaniel L3^on 
overcame what seemed to him to be the " imbecility * * * 
or villain}"*" of his innnediate superiors. Suffice it to say 
that the schemes of the secessionists were frustrated. On 
May 10 Camp Jackson was captured by Lyon. Pause for a 
time was given to the progress of events by the Price-Harney 
agreement of May 21. But on June 12, Lyon, now at last at 
the head of the military Department, closed an interview with 
Governor Jackson at St. Louis in words that admitted of no 
misinterpretation. " Rather," said he (he was still seated 
and spoke deliberately, slowly, and with a peculiar empha- 
sis)^all this on the authority of an eyewitness, a member of 
the governor's staff — " rather than concede to the State of 
Missouri the right to demand that m}" Go^^ernment shall not 
enlist troops within her limits, or bring troops into the State 
whenever it jjleases, or move its troops at its own will into, 
out of, or through the State; rather than concede to the State 
of Missouri for one single instant the right to dictate to my 
Government in any matter, however unimportant, I would" 
(rising, as he said this, and pointing in turn to everyone in the 
room) "see jou, and ^you, and you, and you, and .you, and 
ever}' man, woman, and child in the State dead and ))uried." 
Then, turning* to the governor, he said: " This moans war. In 
an hour one of my officers will call for you and conduct you 
out of my lines." And then, without another word, without 
an inclination of the head, without even a look, he tui"ned 
upon his heel and strode out of the room.^ 

The next day appeared Governor Jackson's proclamation 
calling for 50,000 men to drive the Federal troops from the 
State, and the war began. 

The effect which these events had in producing a new crys- 
tallization of opinion with reference to the Union was no 
doubt great. Judged in the light of subsequent events, 
Lyon's attack on Camp Jackson was politically a mistake. 
War doubtless would have come in any event; Init coming as 
it did, the result was to drive many hitherto Union men into 



iSiieiul, FigJit for Missouri, i,\k 199-200. 



96 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

the Confederate camp. Harne}', whose loj^alty is now clearly 
established, was probably a fitter g-uide politically in these 
troublous times than either Blair or Lyon. At all events the 
policy of "Thorough,'"' anticipating- attacks and overriding- 
nice distinctions of law and constitutionality, had for its elTects 
the conversion to secession of men like Sterling Price — the 
president of the convention, and one of the best and most 
popular men in Missouri — and the complete surrender of the 
legislature to Governor Jackson's designs. 

The changes produced in opinions Ijy these events became 
evident when the convention reassembled July 22, 1861, on 
call of a committee intrusted with this power. The object of 
its session was to consider the situation produced by the flight 
from Jefferson City of the State government before the 
advance of the Union troops. Out of a membership of ninety- 
nine some sixteen, including- the president of the body, failed 
to appear at any time, the inference being that they sided 
with the governor and against the convention. The debates, 
too, as recorded in the proceedings of the convention, show a 
distinct change in tone. In the former session the shading of 
opinions from extreme unionism, through moderate unionism 
to mild secessionism, was gradual and progressive. In this 
session opinion is seen crystallized into two sharply contrast- 
ing parties. On the one side are those who demand the vaca- 
tion of the offices held by the governor, lieutenant-governor, 
secretary of state, and the members of both houses of the 
legislature. On the other side are those who, whether from 
S3'mpath3' with the governor's course, constitutional scruples, 
or fear of militar}^ rule and abolitionism, oppose such a course. 
The spirit of conciliation, which had marked the former session 
of the convention, has now disappeared. In its place is 
revealed the bitterness and animosity of party strife, the 
reflex in the council chamber of the armt^d conflict and guer- 
rilla warfare of the State at large. 

In this conflict the victory was with the party of action. B}' 
a vote of 56 to 25 Jackson was deposed; and ))y similar votes 
the other offices in question were declared a acant, and certain 
"odious laws" passed b}^ the legislature in the interests of 
secession were abrogated.^ This done, the convention pro- 

1 Convention Journal (Jnly, 1801), pp. l!0-22. 



MISSOURI PARTY STRUGGLES IIN CIVIL WAR. 97 

ceeded to fill the vacancy in the governorship b}" the election 
of one of its members, Judge Hamilton R. Gamble, of St. 
Louis, to that position. Then, on July 31, having adopted 
an address to the people in justification of their course, the 
convention adjourned, again subject to call. 

Soon after this date (August 10) came the disastrous battle 
of AVilson Creek, in which Lyon lost his life; and this was 
followed (August 30) by the proclamation of martial law. 
With these events the political struggle against secession may 
be considered as coming to an end. Thenceforth secession 
is a matter to be dealt with by the military power, whether 
found armed in the field or passive in the market or Avorkshop. 
Thenceforth, through military control of the polls, through 
compulsory oaths of allegiance, through the levying of assess- 
ments on the propert}^ of disloyalists, and finally through dis- 
franchising laws and constitutions, the political control of the 
State is for eight years in the hands of Union men exclusiveh'. 

So one chapter is closed; but a new one is forthwith 
opened. The difiiculty is again exemplified of stopping a 
revolution halfwa}'. The question of the Union once settled 
by the elimination politically of the disunionists, the question 
of slavery began to loom large before men's eyes. As early 
as 1857 Gratz Brown had made a speech in the Missouri 
house of representatives advocating and prophesying the 
abolition of slavery in Missouri, on grounds of the State's 
material interests.^ And although the St. Louis Intelligencer 

1 Although "framed principally," as its author told a correspondent, "to suit [his] 
own meridian [St. Louis]," where there was a strong German element; and although 
"it was a startling speech to the house, in some respects," (Brown to G. R. Smith, Mar. 3, 
1857, MS.), yet when judged by Northern standards it seems a comparatively innocent 
performance. The circumstance which called it forth was the introduction in the 
house of a senate joint resolution declaring that " the emancipation of the slaves held 
as property in this State would be not only impracticable, but that any movement hav- 
ing such an object in view would be inexpedient, impolitic, unwise, and unjust, and 
should, in the opinion of this general assembly, be discountenanced by the people of the 
State." 

This resolution. Brown declared, had removed all restraints upon the opponents of 
slavery from discussing the subject, and had " made emancipation henceforth and for- 
ever an open question in Missouri." Slavery would be abolished there, he maintained; 
but out of regard for the poor white laborer, and not as an act of humanity to the slaves. 
"It will be here," he said, "as elsewhere, a conflict of race; and I do say that the 
increase of free white population, together with the white emigration from the other 
States coming to Missouri will, whenever and wherever the labor of the white man 
meets the labor of the slave, beside the same plowshares, in the same harvest field, face to 
face, not only be entitled to demand, but will receive, the preference; and that the labor 
of the white man will force the labor of the slave to give place and take itself off." By 
reference to statistics he showed that "the extinction of slaverj'as a system in our midst 

H. Doc. 548, pt 1 7 



98 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

had styled the existence of an emancipation party in Missouri, 
"an impossibilit}", an impertinence, a nuisance, and a hum- 
bug-,"^ this was mere whistling to keep up one's courage. 
The elements for the formation of such a party did exist, and 
were bound with the development of the State to grow more 
numerous. ''Ever^^ emigrant from the East or Europe," 
said Brown editorially in the Missouri Democrat, in answer 
to the foregoing stricture, "every mile of railroad con- 
structed in the State, and every mine opened, is the auxiliary 
of that party. It will summon its recruits from the factor}^ 
the workshop, and the field; and so far from he'mg a political 
and economic blunder, * '* * it is the organization which 
of all others conforms most strictly to the principles of politi- 
cal and economic science.''^ 

Under the operation of a solicitude to avert the threatened 
dissolution of the Union, antislaverv opinions lost ground in 
the early months of 1861. But when war came, in its heat 
and glare, radical opinions developed rapidly. The policy 
embodied in Fremont's famous proclamation of August 31, 
1861, declaring- freed the slaves of Missourians taking- arms 
against the United States, became the point of departure for 
a new antislavery agitation and a new political division. 
Before the close of 1861 the Union partj^ was separating into 
two wings, stj'led respectively the Radicals and Conservatives. 
"We must give up slavery or we must give up the Union," 
was the position assumed b}^ the former; and the}'' demanded 
that the policy laid down in Fremont's proclamation, which 
had been overruled by the President, should be carried out. 
"If a man is right," replied one of their number to a criti- 
cism from Governor Gamble, "he can not be too radical; and 
if he is wrong, he can not be too conservative." These words 
aptl}^ charactei'ize the whole position of the Radical party. 

is at this moment in the course of rapid accomplishment." "Missouri must, ere long, 
from the operation of natural causes, rid herself of the institution. * * * In all our 
domestic relations, as well as in our relations as a State of this confederacy, Missouri 
would be benefited by the liberation and riddance of every slave within her borders." 
He warned his fellow-representatives that while they were " higgling * * * for the 
indorsement of an effete system of slavery, the empire of the world" was gliding from 
their grasp, and passing to the free States on their borders. And as for the sentimental 
ties which, it was often urged, should bind them to the other slave-holding States, 
" Missouri," he exclaimed, "has nothing in common with the South, either in national 
or home concerns. Nor does she owe any debt of gratitude" to that section. (See 
speech in full in Missouri Democrat, February — , 1857.) 

1 Quoted by Missouri Democrat, Feb. 27, 1857. 

2 Missouri Democrat, Feb. 27, 1857. 



MISSOURI PABTY STRUGGLES IN CIVIL WAR. 99 

Right and wrong, were, in their eyes, sharply opposed. They 
were sure of the rectitude of their own views and they 
would tolerate no compromise.^ 

The slow progress of the war, the abolition of slavery in 
the District of Columbia (April 16, 1862), and the offer by 
Congress of financial aid to the loj^al States adopting a policy 
of compensated emancipation, greatl}- strengthened the anti- 
slavery element in Missouri. By the close of 1862 the lead- 
ers of the Conservatives were united with the Radicals in the 
conviction that slavery must go; and Governor Gamble 
embodied this view in his message of December, 1862, to the 
legislature. The only difference between the two parties in 
this matter was as to ways and means. The Conservatives in 
the legislature, acting on the recommendation of the gov- 
ernor, wished to reconvene the existing convention to initiate 
emancipation, while the Radicals sought to secure the election 
of an entirely new convention. It was the Conservative pol- 
icy which triumphed; and the majority of the convention, 
when it met, dealt with the subject in an eminently conserva- 
tive way. ''They indeed devised and adopted a scheme of 
emancipation," says a recent writer, "but it was one which, 
in the new condition of public opinion, seemed vitiated with a 
spirit of selfishness and an afterthought of evasion. * * * 
The institution of slavery in Missouri would have remained 
untouched for the period of seven years, with, of course, the 
contingent possibility of a change of public sentiment and a 
repeal of the ordinance before any right to freedom could 
accrue. * * * Jt ^^s not to be expected that such a dila- 
tory and half-hearted measure as this would receive popular 
acceptance."^ 

The measure did not, in fact, prove generally acceptable. 
The Radical agitation for emancipation went on more vigor- 
ously than ever;^ and it now received the form of an organ- 

1 Governor Gamble's attitude is indicated] in the statement of tlae Missouri Democrat, 
editorially, on November 27, 1861, that he " was in the first place a conditional Union 
man, afterwards an ' armed-neutrality ' man, and now is, as always, a ' conservative ' 
citizen." 

2 Nicolay and Hay, Lincoln, VIII, p. 209. 

^The Radical position on slavery, by September, 1863, is exemplified in the remark of 
that Radical, George R. Smith, himself a slaveholder, whose epigrammatic reply to Gov- 
ernor Gamble has before been quoted. He "didn't care," he is reported assaying in a 
public speech, "if the Copperheads lost all their slaves, and he had gotto that point where 
he didn't care much if his Union friends lost theirs also." (St. Louis Republican, Sep- 
tember 2, 1863.) 



100 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

ized protest against the whole Conservative rule of the State 
and the Federal policy which supported it. To embody this 
protest, a mass convention was called to meet at Jefferson City 
September 2. From the standpoint of the Radical organ of 
St. Louis, the meeting was "the most successful and most im- 
portant political convention ever held in the State." "The 
convention derives its importance," it said in another issue, 
"from the position which it has taken upon the questions of 
the day. The ground which it has seen fit to occupy will com- 
mand at once the national attention and respect. For the first 
time in the history of the nation a great party has adopted a 
platform of unconditional freedom as the basis of a thorough 
State organization in a slave State. The part}^ which has done 
this holds the destinies of Missouri in its hands." ^ The Con- 
servative organ, on the other hand, charactei'ized the conA^en- 
tion as a "meeting of conspirators against the peace of this 
State; of those who propose to put out of ofiice, by force, the 
present State government and to improvise a new State gov- 
ernment on its ruins; of those who are not satisfied with the 
ordinance of emancipation, or rather with that amendment of 
the Constitution which wipes out slavery in this State in less 
time than it was ever accomplished in any other State of the 
Union; of that class who propose radical changes in this mili- 
tary department, and, failing that, to denounce the President 
and his Cabinet for refusing to carry out their insane and 
treasonable projects." ^ 

The root of the matter was tnat Governor Gamble's admin- 
istration, while it had reflected the consensus of Union opinion 
in July, 1861, was too lukewarm for the Radical Union opinion 
which had since developed. The fifth resolution adopted by 
the convention arraigns the provisional government as "un- 
true to the people" of the State, the following being the chief 
counts in the indictment: the use of the forces of the State to 
maintain slavery; the disarmament of loyalists and the estab- 
lishment of the "enrolled militia," many of whom are charac- 
terized as "known and avowed disloyalists;" and a refusal to 
cooperate with the General Government, particularly in the 
execution of orders levying assessments against disloyalists. 
The most efficacious way of securing a redress of their griev- 

1 Missouri Democrat, Sept. 3 and 4, 1863. 

2 St. Louis Republican, September 1, 1863. 



MISSOURI PARTY STRUGGLES IN CIVIL WAR. 101 

ances, in the view of the convention, lay in the sending to 
Washing-ton of a committee so large that it could not be 
charged, as had formei'h" l)een the case, with being the repre- 
sentative of a mere faction. A committee of one from each 
county — seventy in all — was accordingly appointed to lay their 
grievances before the President. ^ In due time the committee 
made the trip and was received by Lincoln. The mingled 
tact and firmness with which the latter handled the matter of 
these party differences in Missouri is worthy of the highest 
praise. It was in his formal reply to this delegation that Lin- 
coln used the language with which this paper begins. He was 
obliged to refuse the more important demands of the commit- 
tee, and to let them know that the reins of mastery lay in his 
hands. "It is my duty to hear all," he said; "but at last I 
must, within m}" sphere, judge what to do and what to for- 
bear."^ His own sympathies, however, were with the Radi- 
cals, because of the integrity and sincerity of their political 
views. "I believe, after all," he remarked to his secretary, 
Mr. Ha\', some weeks later, "those Missouri Radicals will carry 
their State, and 1 do not object to it. They are nearer to me 
than the other side in thought and sentiment, though bitterly 
hostile personally. The}^ are the unhandiest fellows in the 
world to deal with; but, after all, their faces are set Zion- 
wards. " ^ 

President Lincoln's forecast of results in Missouri proved 
to be correct. At the election held November 3, 1863, the 
Radicals made some gains and won a slight victory, the sol- 
diers' vote being cast almost unanimously for their ticket. In 
Januar}', 1864, occurred the death of Governor Gamble, the 
most conspicuous leader of the Conservatives. This mate- 
rially weakened the part}^, and as the Presidential election 
of that year came on the Conservatives as an organization 
practically went to pieces. The voters of Democratic an- 
tecedents returned to the Democratic fold and supported 
McClellan on the Chicago platform, which declared the war 
a failure, wdiile those of Whig and "American" origin little by 
little fused with the Radicals. The hostility of the latter 
proved to be more a matter which concerned the leaders than 

1 The resolutions of the convention may be found in the St. Louis papers for September 
3, and in a condensed form in Applcton's Annual Cyclopedia for 1863. 
- Nicolay and Hay, VIII, p. 22c. 
3Ibid.,p. 220. 



102 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

the ran IV and file, and despite the opposition of some German 
Fremonters, Lincohi carried the State in November by 40,000 
majority. For the first time since the beginning of the war 
State officers were chosen at this election, and the entire Rad- 
ical ticket, with Governor Fletcher at its head, was elected 
by a similar majority. In the elections to the general assem- 
bly the Radicals secured a majority of the senate and three- 
fourths of the lower house. Finally, at this election it was 
decided that a new constitutional convention be called, whose 
first duty, it was well understood, would be to pass an imme- 
diate emancipation ordinance, and of the delegates chosen to 
this body three-fourths were taken from the Radical party. 

The work of the convention of 186.5 was of great political 
importance, but it ma}^ only detain us now for a moment. 
B}" a decreee of January 11 slavery was abolished, immedi- 
ately and without compensation; and so was closed the second 
chapter in the history of the contest. But, as in the former 
case, a new chapter was forthwith opened by the insertion, in 
the constitution adopted b}^ the convention, of the most radi- 
cal disfranchising provisions. No person was to be allowed 
to vote at any election in the State who had "ever given aid, 
comfort, countenance, or support to any persons engaged in'^ 
hostilities to the United States, or had ever "Z»y '^^''ord or deed 
manifested his adherence to the cause of such enemies, or his 
desire for their triumph over the arms of the United States, 
or his sympathy with those engaged in exciting or carrying 
on rebellion.'" In the vote on the ratification of the constitu- 
tion itself these provisions were b}' anticipation to apply; but 
even so, its adoption was procured by a majority of less than 
2,000 votes.' 

With the adoption of this constitution Missouri's political 
history in the civil war period comes to an end. From an 
overwhelming majority in support of the Union in February, 
1861, there had followed a dropping off of the more extreme 
Southern sympathizers after the assault on Camp Jackson and 
the violation of the Price-Harney agreement. When the 
question of slavery pressed to the front, division had resulted 
even among those who remained loyal to the Union, and so 
had arisen the Radical and Conservative parties. Finally, 

'Annual Cyclopedia, 1865, under "Missouri." 



MISSOURI PARTY STRUGGLES IN CIVIL WAR. 103 

through a policy of disfranchisement, we have seen the Rad- 
ical faction triumph over their opponents. ''Union and 
slaverj'^" — the question was truly, in Lincoln's phrase, "a 
perplexing compound,''' and one presenting many sides and 
many phases. But when once the Union was definitely as- 
sured by the suppression of the rebellion, and slavery was 
wholly and immediately abolished, political grouping in the 
State becomes simpler. Staunch Union and antislaver}^ men, 
like Blair and Brown, found it impossible to support the pol- 
icy of retaliation and disfranchisement to which their Radical 
colleagues were pledged. A split in the Radical, or Republi- 
can, ranks appears and grows wider. The Democrats, there- 
upon, adopt a policy of alliance with the Liberal Republicans, 
and this combination triumphs in 1870 in the election of Gratz 
Brown as governor and the repeal of the disfranchising clauses 
of the constitution of 1865. With this event the reign of 
Radical Republicanism definitely closes in Missouri, and there 
begins the reaction of triumohant Democracy. 



\ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 703 817 1 « 






